The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Qualities That Make Video Games GREAT?
breakz
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So I'm capitalizing this post b/c I want it to be heard and responded to...otherwise everyone will see lower-case and think "noob" or "illiterate."
Anyway, there's been a bunch of things about gaming that have bothered me recently (which have been brought to light by the amusing Action Button thread). The bottom line is that I feel gaming needs to change to create a better user experience than what we currently have--otherwise we'll be mired in a field of once-great games like God Of War: Caesar's Conundrum, Zelda: Shiny Skin Flute, etc.
I've been playing games like Ninja Gaiden Black, Call of Duty, and FFIII, and I'm finding that these games aren't necessarily fun--NGB because I suck at it and its mad hard, CoD because its been done at least 5-6 times per console, and FFIII b/c its incredibly old school/repetitive. Then I play a game like Gears of War, and it blows my mind completely. Or GRAW, which provides strategy, immersion and an intense storyline. Hotel Dusk had my jaw dropped b/c of the amazing writing and simple gameplay. Even RE4 was easy to get into and tenacious in keeping a hold on the gamer.
So here's my question to everyone: Where do video games need to go from here? How can developers make evolved games? Does evolution mean shinier graphics, crazy control schemes, or just grand-scale interactive movies?
Now onto my question:
tl;dr: what do you think makes for a universally acclaimed video game, among both mainstream and hardcore gamers?
Go.
PS My answer, click below if interested:
Anyway, there's been a bunch of things about gaming that have bothered me recently (which have been brought to light by the amusing Action Button thread). The bottom line is that I feel gaming needs to change to create a better user experience than what we currently have--otherwise we'll be mired in a field of once-great games like God Of War: Caesar's Conundrum, Zelda: Shiny Skin Flute, etc.
I've been playing games like Ninja Gaiden Black, Call of Duty, and FFIII, and I'm finding that these games aren't necessarily fun--NGB because I suck at it and its mad hard, CoD because its been done at least 5-6 times per console, and FFIII b/c its incredibly old school/repetitive. Then I play a game like Gears of War, and it blows my mind completely. Or GRAW, which provides strategy, immersion and an intense storyline. Hotel Dusk had my jaw dropped b/c of the amazing writing and simple gameplay. Even RE4 was easy to get into and tenacious in keeping a hold on the gamer.
So here's my question to everyone: Where do video games need to go from here? How can developers make evolved games? Does evolution mean shinier graphics, crazy control schemes, or just grand-scale interactive movies?
Now onto my question:
tl;dr: what do you think makes for a universally acclaimed video game, among both mainstream and hardcore gamers?
Go.
PS My answer, click below if interested:
In this bogus Entrepreneurship class I'm taking at UF (which starts in 5 hours lol), we're learning about the customer experience and how its paramount to anything else in business. The most successful businesses (Dell pre-bad service, Apple, Amazon, Starbucks, Krispy Kreme and that glaze conveyer belt) have a unique customer experience. The coffee you get at Starbucks is the same shitty stuff sold at Dunkin Donuts...but more ppl buy it because they perceive value there. I personally think games have to be high-value games with simple, increasingly difficult gameplay.
Examples: Gears of War succeeds because it takes kill.switch's simple cover mechanic, RE4's intuitive action button, and mashes them into a strategic 3rd-person shooter. Zelda takes simple platforming and puzzle-solving and combines it into a fantasy-adventure game. Both of them work b/c they're immersive but easy to play.
Examples: Gears of War succeeds because it takes kill.switch's simple cover mechanic, RE4's intuitive action button, and mashes them into a strategic 3rd-person shooter. Zelda takes simple platforming and puzzle-solving and combines it into a fantasy-adventure game. Both of them work b/c they're immersive but easy to play.
Now Playing - GRAW, FFIII DS, Ninja Gaiden Black, Phoenix Wright
breakz on
0
Posts
Most developers have gotten the 'presence of quality' thing by now. You can buy a racing game and expect 10 hours of quality racing, or a shooting game and 8 hours of quality shooting, or whatever.
But way too many titles are loaded with unlovable obligatory bullshit gameplay because:
A) They thought the genre had to work that way
C) The publisher wanted '20 hours of gameplay!' on the box
Most games still fail the "do I give a shit about what I'm doing on screen right now?" test too often.
Also, when can I expect to see Zelda: Shiny Skin Flute? (tl;dr means "too long; didn't read" by the way)
Your professor is full of shit. If you believe your professor? Then you're also full of shit.
However this would be a bit of a tangent from the subject you're trying to talk about so it's probably best if we don't get into it. Without diving into it though, no, what sells at Starbucks and what has made them a huge success is in no way similar to what is sold to you at a Dunkin Donuts othet than in that both products originate with coffee beans.
*edit*
Oh you're just mean.
Actually, it is absolutely right.
Is Starbucks coffee better than Dunkin Donuts? Yes. Can most consumers REALLY tell the difference? No.
Consumer experience is a HUGE deal with products that are easily substitutable.
he likes to teach from anecdotal evidence, but i will tell you this: you can't doubt that ppl buy ipods over other cheaper, longer-lasting mp3 players because they provide a better, more intuitive user experience.
this, again, is an anecdote. but with the way our economy is maturing, people need to differentiate their business somehow. they do this by creating value (or perceived value) and convincing customers that the business-client relationship they have is more valuable/important than anything found anywhere else.
you have to defend a statement like that. and i've had real, good coffee harvested from my ex-boss' farm in Brazil, and i can tell you that in the grand scheme of coffee, starbucks and dunkin donuts are at the bottom of the food chain (with sbucks slightly above).
but i digress.
Now Playing - GRAW, FFIII DS, Ninja Gaiden Black, Phoenix Wright
go play ff8 lol. or read one of those romantic novels w/ half-naked ppl on the cover.
Now Playing - GRAW, FFIII DS, Ninja Gaiden Black, Phoenix Wright
i hope we never, ever see zelda: shiny skin flute lol. that would be rough.
what way do you see games reinventing themselves? i mean, it seems like developers are too afraid of innovation to try out anything new--that's why the new ninja gaiden gets three iterations, while clover gets shut down.
Now Playing - GRAW, FFIII DS, Ninja Gaiden Black, Phoenix Wright
i really, seriously agree w/ your "give a shit w/ on-screen" test.
for me, the epitome was god of war 1, when
at that point i just said "what the fuck" and gave up. gears was badass, but it also made up for its short single-player with sick, sick multi. and i mean sick. and there were no "idgaf" moments, if i remember right.
"how do developers mitigate this problem while creating a lot of unique content and replayability?" is the big, big question.
Now Playing - GRAW, FFIII DS, Ninja Gaiden Black, Phoenix Wright
...what problem? What the hell does 'idgaf' mean? What exactly bothered you about that moment in God of War? W/ means 'with' I assume?
Also, Dunkin' Donuts >>> Starbucks. >.>
I'm guessing that the "idga" part of "idgaf" stands for "I Don't Give A," but that last letter leaves me clueless.
Furry?
Fumble?
Fitzgerald?
he's not one of us
How that part of God of War made him feel that way, I don't know.
How to be universally acclaimed? Hmm ... I keep typing things, but they all come out like that ps3 home thing.
I'm afraid that the next really big game will have a budget that could have ended global hunger ... and I'll buy it on release day
Hell, I'm replaying BGII AGAIN just to hear Irenicus's speeches. That game is thoroughly dated and looks like crap on my monitor but the story is so good that I don't care.
Also there are thing games NEED to have as standards that just annoy the crap out of me. Crouch needs to be a toggle, not something that you hold down in FPSs. If I shoot a human NPC in the face with an AK47 he must die. In RPGs random encounters have to go, there must be a more clever way to get snuck up on than that. Etc.
Bijaz - Ironbreaker
Level Design
Level Design
Storyline
The AI is thrown somewhere down this list.
Unless you have an RPG then it's usually the other way round.
I always go back to these two as an example because I think they are the perfect examples of a good game that didn't quite get it, and a great game.
Perfect Dark and Goldeneye.
Perfect Dark looked better had a better frame rate and better features. But in single player it had it's arse kicked because the level designs were just blah compared to Goldeneye, the guys that left Rare to go work on Timesplitters even made their own massive dam homage. Even in multiplayer PD had better features, but when I did play it, again I mainly played the orriginal GE maps.
No matter how far you go with technologies, you need to make the games fun to play, as long as the graphics are serviceable and the game is fun it will work.
Satans..... hints.....
What do you mean by random encounters? Like pokemon or JRPG style pop up encounters or the "random encounters" which are more prevelant in MMORPGs?
Because whilst the first I could agree with I quite enjoy 'randomised' enemies as long as they make logical sense.
If by this you mean relationships that aren't horribly contrived and don't make the concept laughable, I agree.
Positive example? Xenogears.
Negative? FFVIII.
I meant the sort of games that have you walking alone in an unending field and then all of a sudden your screen flashes and a monster is attacking you. JRPG style would be a good description I guess.
Bijaz - Ironbreaker
I don't need a different experience every time I play a game, I need a *GOOD* experience every time I play a game. I need to not have to do stupid, illogical shit. I need decent AI, quality gameplay, and yes, good graphics (which does not just mean more bumpmapping or whatever it is we're doing now).
When I find a movie I like, and it becomes something I want to watch again and again, why is that? It's certainly not because it has multiple endings or is non-linear, it's because it's *GOOD*. I'd like to see that in more games.
An experience in a game, regardless of length, that is just fun, from start to finish, without that inevitable shitty part you have to force yourself through is what I want to see out of modern games.
:^:
Words. Mouth. Taken from.
I was going to disagree with your statement about PD, until I realized that in multiplayer all I played were the GE maps as well.
As for the PD single player experience, the fact that it can be shared makes it weigh far heavier in my book than GE.
To the thread author, how is it that you can state your intentions so clearly, and then just completely abandon them before the end of the first page? We thought you wanted to appeal to the PA publics use of the English language, and then you go and get all teenage FPS player on us.
YES! It should be a staple by now. Enough with these marketing strategies that more is better, I'm tired of games boasting about their 4 or 5 different game modes, which we all know, but I'll list for the sake of it, DeathMatch, Team DeathMatch, Last Man Standing, Team Last Man Standing, and every now and again CTF.
For example, when I play fable I can kill guys with chain lightning or my kickass bow and arrow or my giant sword, but I can't budge that locked door because it's locked. When I hit it with my sword it should matter. Wood splinter and eventually breaks when you hit it as hard as my guy hits things. See also, not being able to jump over picket fences or knee-high debris. You expect me to believe that I can take out a pack of balverines, but I don't have it in me to jump a three-foot fence? Immersive world my ass.
I love FFIII for the old school feel. But, I also love Wii sports for the new-playstyle experience it gives. Gears of War was fun, if short (I am not into online play, except co-op), but I actually enjoyed Red Steel more for the "new" controls and more memorable environments.
What is all this saying? There are as many taste in games as gamers, and I believe there are plenty of gamers out there interested in both the old and the new. So, bring on old school shooters, fighters, RPGs, etc., but also expand the playing field with new and interesting ideas!
Some people will tire of the old, and move on to the new. Some people will stick with the familiar old styles that they enjoy. And some will play everything they can get their hands on!
I mean the last time I really said..."This most be one the future of gaming is going to be like." Is when I went from playing the Genesis to playing the Playstation. Now I understand that the transition from 2D to 3D is probably the biggest "jump" we'll get in the next decade or so, but I would like to see a lot more of the power available in these systems being put to more than making games look prettier. I can see it bit by bit in a lot of the more ambitious games, but I'd like to see it a lot more in general.
Repeat until game hits shelves.
What “fun and entertaining†means differs depending on the person, and what the game is trying to do.
There is no one size fits all or “here is what games NEED to†do. The only thing games need to do is be fun and entertaining. As long as games are fun and entertaining, people will buy them.
And what “fun and entertaining†means differs depending on the person, and what the game is trying to do.
Is there some other subtext to these questions that I’m missing?
e.g. Something like Satoru Iwata's interviews with the developers of Twilight Princess before launch?
I WILL NOT BE DOING 3DS FOR NWC THREAD. SOMEONE ELSE WILL HAVE TO TAKE OVER.
Spoiler contains Friend Codes. Won't you be my friend?
More Friend Codes!
Mario Kart Wii: 3136-6982-0286 Tetris Party: 2364 1569 4310
Guitar Hero: Metallica: 1032 7229 7191
TATSUNOKO VS CAPCOM: 1935-2070-9123
Nintendo DS:
Worms: Open Warfare 2: 1418-7870-1606 Space Bust-a-Move: 017398 403043
Scribblenauts: 1290-7509-5558
so there's nothing you'd like to see game developers do? you feel games work perfectly fine in their current state?
no gripes about the massively useless bonus content of some games, or repetitive nature of others, or unimproved, rehashed story and gameplay of most?
Now Playing - GRAW, FFIII DS, Ninja Gaiden Black, Phoenix Wright
i definitely agree with this.
does team ninja really think ninja gaiden was thoroughly fun throughout? how about god of war 2 or super paper mario...have those been thoroughly enjoyable for all of you?
all the great games i've played pass this litmus test. re4, gears, even windwaker (not for everyone else, i know).
Now Playing - GRAW, FFIII DS, Ninja Gaiden Black, Phoenix Wright
No more fetch quests.
No more: "Hey buddy, do this stupid errand for me and I'll give you a small piece of pie. PIE."
I'm looking at you Twilight Princess.
End user mods have been the lifeblood of hard core gamers on the PC market for years now. They breath life into genres that are getting stale. The biggest case for this is counter-strike. You are looking at something that was created by people outside of the controlled industry.
They are allowed to take chances in ideas that are far outside the norm, and would never get an approval from a corporate sponsor, which is what dev houses need to get to make their games.
My only dread about the evolution of the consoles to rival the PC as a premier platform is that consoles are so locked down, and hard to mod for, that the real genius and enginuity will never be allowed to take place.
XNA is a good start, but unless people make games for the 360 that allow XNA users to hook into them, it will only amount to bargain bin games (although some terribly fun ones), and will be short lived.
(spoiler: Natural-Selection 2 - look forward to it)
Thing is what's "fun and entertaining" can change over time. I mean back in the day, I thought Double Dragon was one of the best games ever made, but the market started to become over-saturated with clones that weren't nearly as entertaining(though Streets of Rage was a lot better). The think is that, games have to change and offer something different every once in a while to stay "fun and entertaining" and not simply be something you've already played with a different name.
I'm not saying that old games are no longer worth playing once the new stuff has come out(I still play plenty of SNES, Sega, and PSone games). Just saying that if you keep getting the same product over and over without any real attempts to bring something new or improve on something old, it gets boring after a while. And that's something I think developers should keep in mind.
I mean look at the last generation and the ones before that. MGS was fun because there hadn't really been many games that focused on stealth that much(outside of Thief I think). GTA III was fun and entertaining because before it came out there weren't many sandbox games out there. Halo was fun because it gave an awesome experience of being in a great battle, which while on PCs for some time hadn't really been shown on consoles outside of the WWII games you'd already played a million times.
RE4 was fun because they finally improved the crappy controls from the previous REs and made able to reach a larger audience. Even in this generation, Gears of Wars got where it was not because it made something new, but because it took good parts from other games (RE4 and Killswitch) and improved upon them to make a fun and (seemingly) new experience.
So while I agree with you that the priorty for games should be to stay fun, I think moving forward is necessary too.
I don’t see enough co-op play, turn-based strategy on consoles, and adventure games. Those are my tastes. My tastes, of course, have nothing to do with what the industry “needs†to do, only what I’d like to see more of.
As it stands, though, I have more great games than I possibly have time to play … so no, no major gripes from me. I’ve been playing video games for nearing 30 years; can’t think of a better time to be a gamer than right now. Whatever I want, it's out there. "Games?" You say "games" as if it's a singular entitity to be judged as a whole. Yes, some games work perfectly and do exactly what they set out to do. And some don't. And some don't appeal to me, so whether they do what they do well, I don't know.
I mean, your question is like asking, "you feel food tastes fine in its current state?"
Well, what food?
I've seen a focus on graphics whoring scaled back in lieu of gameplay, and that's good. Story is recognized as important to a greater degree than ever before. That's good, too. Digital content and add-ons are getting a foothold. That's good. Back catalogs are being made available, cheaper game options, diversity of content, consoles with real differences. All good.
Some games suck ass. Graphics whoring still happens. Online integration isn't perfect. Etc., etc.
In other words, there is good stuff and bad stuff. Same as it ever was.
I'm going to have to disagree about mods. While the "major" mod scene still has some sway, I think it's faded a lot in the last 5 years or so.
These days, you very rarely see any big mod releases, and something like CS pretty much never happens anymore. While some teams still get mods finished, they're never all that popular, and they certainly aren't the "lifeblood" of any games I can think of.
The mod scene on a game like Oblivion is interesting to me though, because you see a lot of smaller projects popping up, keeping the game going for significant amounts of time post-release.
I want a world and a goal, and that's it. I can go about it any way I want - but everyone in the world has motivations, every culture has goals, every ruler has personality traits, every single thing in the game works like I'm not even there - the world just unfolds, and the player has to decide how to work within the ever changing world to accomplish their goals. Ideally you'd just simulate the whole damn world and drop the player into it with a simple set of instructions, and it'd be different every time you played the game based on your actions, choices, and the probabalistic occurences (in one game Nation A invades Nation B, the next Race A tries to commit genocide against Race B, whatever).